[F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (7673 previous messages)

gisterme - 08:52pm Jul 31, 2001 EST (#7674 of 7773)

rshowlater wrote ( rshowalter 7/31/01 8:20pm ): But it is doing so by uniting the rest of the world in distrust for the United States, in fear of the United States, and is dissipating, to a degree that no one would have guessed a few months ago, the prestige of the US government, and the US military, world wide.

I think that's another flakey conclusion, Robert. Firstly, nobody's really pissed-off except the far-left liberals who can't stand the revelation that their world view has been so wrong for so long. They just can't believe that the world can go on without them.

Secondly, neither the US nor Russia is losing any prestige at all with anyone besides those off-the-scope lefties. Those folks have never held the US in high regard anyway; so, no great loss. The US and Russia are just busting the emotional status quo bubbles that have provided bouyancy to the far-left for so long. That the far-left emperor has no clothes can't help but embarass his dedicated tailors. :-)

rshowalter - 08:55pm Jul 31, 2001 EST (#7675 of 7773) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

I'm middle-right in most things, myself.

Being for right answers is a conservative position.

lunarchick - 09:06pm Jul 31, 2001 EST (#7676 of 7773)

Is it! My take would be that 'conservatives' are just slow to latch-on to new truths.
(I'm just awkening from Emu Dreaming - SciPoetry -wondering about potentially new truths re Emu oil )

lunarchick - 09:09pm Jul 31, 2001 EST (#7677 of 7773)

the gulf between law and science as disciplines is so vast that it can never fully be bridged

rshowalter - 09:13pm Jul 31, 2001 EST (#7678 of 7773) Delete Message
Robert Showalter

Being against the wastage of money is also a conservative position.

lunarchick - 09:19pm Jul 31, 2001 EST (#7679 of 7773)

Scientific Evidence
Garcia-Rill, Edgar (with Beecher-Monas, Erica). The law and the brain: Judging scientific evidence of intent. 1 J. App. Prac. & Process 243-277 (1999).

Imwinkelried, Edward J. Should the courts incorporate a best evidence rule into the standard determining the admissibility of scientific testimony?: Enough is enough even when it is not the best. 50 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 19-51 (1999).

Imwinkelried, Edward J. Evaluating the reliability of nonscientific expert testimony: a partial answer to the questions left unresolved by Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. 52 Maine L. Rev. 19-41 (2000).

Moore, Theresa M. Note. Closing the doors on unsupported speculation: Joiner's effect on the admissibility of expert testimony. (General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 1997.) 33 Ind. L. Rev. 349-383 (1999).

Neuhaus, Isaac M. (with Cooper, Joel). The hired gun effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. 24 Law & Hum. Behav. 149-171 (2000).

Reagan, Robert Timothy. Relevance, reliability, and validity of scientific evidence. (Reviewing Kenneth R. Foster and Peter W. Huber, Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts.) 52 Okla. L. Rev.291-301 (1999).

Ghosh, Shubha. Comment. Fragmenting knowledge, misconstruing Rule 702: How lower courts have resolved the problem of technical and other specialized knowledge in . . . (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 1993). 1 J. Intell. Prop. 1-60 (1999).

Graham, Michael H. The expert witness predicament: determining "reliable" under the gatekeeping test of Daubert, Kumho, and proposed amended Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 54 U. Miami L. Rev. 317-357 (2000).

Imwinkelried, Edward J. The escape hatches from Frye and Daubert: Sometimes you don't need to lay either foundation in order to introduce expert testimony! 23 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 1-17 (1999).

Paulauskas, Tracey A. Note. Volume III of the Daubert Trilogy. (Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1999.) 39 Jurimetrics 443-454 (1999).

Saks, Michael J. The aftermath of Daubert: An evolving jurisprudence of expert evidence. 40 Jurimetrics 229-241 (2000). . Sales, Bruce D. (with Shuman, Daniel W.). The impact of Daubert and its progeny on the admissibility of behavioral and social science evidence. 5 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 3-15 (1999).

Whitney, Robert M. A practicing lawyer's guide to the application of Daubert and Kumho. 23 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 241-258 (1999).

Go to this topic in the central index

Specific Types of Scientific Evidence

lunarchick - 09:26pm Jul 31, 2001 EST (#7680 of 7773)

rshowalter 7/31/01 9:13pm Probably hard to actually waste money -Keynsian 'multiplier effects' - perhaps it's using it without effect - 'opportunity cost' - as per lost opportunities as to what might have been.
An investment of $5 per head of USA population would lift selected areas of the third world up by the bootstraps and bring them into the modern economy - more trading partners - increased wealth.

More Messages Unread Messages Recent Messages (93 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Cancel Subscriptions  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company